logo
Trump's budget cuts for US aid halt HIV vaccine research in South Africa

Trump's budget cuts for US aid halt HIV vaccine research in South Africa

Hindustan Times11 hours ago
Just a week had remained before scientists in South Africa were to begin clinical trials of an HIV vaccine, and hopes were high for another step toward limiting one of history's deadliest pandemics. Then the email arrived. The research project, called BRILLIANT, was meant to be the latest to draw on the region's genetic diversity and deep expertise in the hope of benefiting people everywhere.(AP/Representational)
Stop all work, it said. The United States under the Trump administration was withdrawing all its funding.
The news devastated the researchers, who live and work in a region where more people live with HIV than anywhere else in the world. Their research project, called BRILLIANT, was meant to be the latest to draw on the region's genetic diversity and deep expertise in the hope of benefiting people everywhere.
But the $46 million from the U.S. for the project was disappearing, part of the dismantling of foreign aid by the world's biggest donor earlier this year as President Donald Trump announced a focus on priorities at home.
South Africa hit hard by aid cuts
South Africa has been hit especially hard because of Trump's baseless claims about the targeting of the country's white Afrikaner minority. The country had been receiving about $400 million a year via USAID and the HIV-focused PEPFAR.
Now that's gone.
Glenda Grey, who heads the Brilliant program, said the African continent has been vital to the development of HIV medication, and the U.S. cuts threaten its capability to do such work in the future.
Significant advances have included clinical trials for lenacapavir, the world's only twice-a-year shot to prevent HIV, recently approved for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. One study to show its efficacy involved young South Africans.
'We do the trials better, faster and cheaper than anywhere else in the world, and so without South Africa as part of these programs, the world, in my opinion, is much poorer,' Gray said.
She noted that during the urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic, South Africa played a crucial role by testing the Johnson & Johnson and Novavax vaccines, and South African scientists' genomic surveillance led to the identification of an important variant.
Labs empty and thousands are laid off
A team of researchers at the University of the Witwatersrand has been part of the unit developing the HIV vaccines for the trials.
Inside the Wits laboratory, technician Nozipho Mlotshwa was among the young people in white gowns working on samples, but she may soon be out of a job.
Her position is grant-funded. She uses her salary to support her family and fund her studies in a country where youth unemployment hovers around 46%.
'It's very sad and devastating, honestly," she said of the U.S. cuts and overall uncertainty. 'We'll also miss out collaborating with other scientists across the continent.'
Professor Abdullah Ely leads the team of researchers. He said the work had promising results indicating that the vaccines were producing an immune response.
But now that momentum, he said, has 'all kind of had to come to a halt.'
The BRILLIANT program is scrambling to find money to save the project. The purchase of key equipment has stopped. South Africa's health department says about 100 researchers for that program and others related to HIV have been laid off. Funding for postdoctoral students involved in experiments for the projects is at risk.
South Africa's government has estimated that universities and science councils could lose about $107 million in U.S. research funding over the next five years due to the aid cuts, which affect not only work on HIV but also tuberculosis — another disease with a high number of cases in the country.
Less money, and less data on what's affected
South Africa's government has said it will be very difficult to find funding to replace the U.S. support.
And now the number of HIV infections will grow. Medication is more difficult to obtain. At least 8,000 health workers in South Africa's HIV program have already been laid off, the government has said. Also gone are the data collectors who tracked patients and their care, as well as HIV counselors who could reach vulnerable patients in rural communities.
For researchers, Universities South Africa, an umbrella body, has applied to the national treasury for over $110 million for projects at some of the largest schools.
During a visit to South Africa in June, UNAIDS executive director Winnie Byanyima was well aware of the stakes, and the lives at risk, as research and health care struggle in South Africa and across Africa at large.
Other countries that were highly dependent on U.S. funding including Zambia, Nigeria, Burundi and Ivory Coast are already increasing their own resources, she said.
'But let's be clear, what they are putting down will not be funding in the same way that the American resources were funding," Byanyima said.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Senate Raps Secret Service One Year After Trump Assassination Bid, Vance Posts 'Iconic' Pic
Senate Raps Secret Service One Year After Trump Assassination Bid, Vance Posts 'Iconic' Pic

News18

timean hour ago

  • News18

Senate Raps Secret Service One Year After Trump Assassination Bid, Vance Posts 'Iconic' Pic

Last Updated: A U.S. Senate report released on Sunday said a "cascade" of failures allowed a gunman to shoot at Donald Trump during a campaign rally last year. A report of the US released on Sunday said a 'cascade" of failures allowed a gunman to shoot at Donald Trump during a campaign rally last year and faulted Secret Service discipline, including the lack of firings in the wake of the attack. A recent report accuses the Secret Service of negligence and communication failures in planning and executing the security for Donald Trump's rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, where a 20-year-old gunman grazed Trump's ear with a bullet last year. 'This was not a single error. It was a cascade of preventable failures that nearly cost President Trump his life," stated the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee report. The Secret Service is responsible for protecting current and former presidents and their families, as well as visiting foreign leaders and some other senior officials. On the first anniversary of the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, US Vice President JD Vance called the moment the 'most iconic" he has ever witnessed in American politics. Sharing a now-famous image of Trump raising his bloodied fist moments after the shooting, Vance posted on X: 'Remains the most iconic moment I've ever seen in American politics. One year ago today." Remains the most iconic moment I've ever seen in American politics. One year ago today. — JD Vance (@JDVance) July 13, 2025 During the July 13, 2014, rally, one attendee was killed and two others were injured in the shooting. The gunman, Thomas Matthew Crooks, was subsequently shot to death by Secret Service agents. Kimberly Cheatle resigned as the director of the Secret Service 10 days after the shooting, amid harsh scrutiny of the agency's role, and six Secret Service agents on duty during the attempt received suspensions ranging from 10 to 42 days, the agency said on Thursday. The committee argued that more than six officials should have been punished, noting that two of those disciplined received lighter penalties than recommended. It also emphasised that no one was fired. Current Secret Service Director Sean Curran stated that the agency has received the report and will continue to cooperate with the committee. 'Following the events of July 13, the Secret Service took a serious look at our operations and implemented substantive reforms to address the failures that occurred that day," Curran said. view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

The avertible influence of anti-U.S. bluster
The avertible influence of anti-U.S. bluster

New Indian Express

timean hour ago

  • New Indian Express

The avertible influence of anti-U.S. bluster

It is true that Indian social media influencers have come of age. They probably have more views and clicks than mainstream media practitioners and influence millions more. However, here's the danger. First of all, their titles and headlines are misleading. Mere clickbait. They include, often misleadingly, if not mischievously, the name of some important political bigwig or another. US President Donald J. Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in reverse order, are their favourites. They also claim, week after week, video after video, that some 'big action' is being planned. Or some big crash, when it comes to finfluencers, is in the offing. 'Modi checkmates Trump' or 'Dedollarisation Underway' are examples of the kind of headlines I am talking about. Of course, few, if any, of their dire warnings or hopeful predictions pan out as promised. Instead, the viewer is taken for a ride through more dangerous drivel or speculative slosh. Worse, many content creators and handles are faking images and voices of famous personalities, such as Oprah Winfrey, Warren Buffett, or Jordan Peterson, to post content that has nothing to do with these worthies. Some of this material is disinformation, plain and simple, weaponised and deployed for not-so-innocent and outright sinister ends. However, a lot of it is only boasting and bluster, good for business and profits. For, I am told, many of these channels are raking in huge bucks, some in stratospheric numbers exceeding ₹50 lakh or even ₹1 crore a month. With very little investment. Even among the best of these influencers—whom I won't name, as some are friends—the content is variable and not always reliable. However, one clear trend among all the pro-government channels is a mocking of US President Trump and an exaltation of our own great leader. No harm in old-style patriotism, you say? But there is a downside to this, which I must spell out. Instead of speaking softly and carrying a big stick, we may end up talking, even shouting and screaming too loudly, while holding a little one. This doesn't augur well for a rising power like India. Why? Self-delusion is sure to land us in a hole which we have dug for ourselves. I am going to stick my neck out here: India, to go on doing well, probably needs the US more than the US needs us.

Scrap the asylum system—and build something better
Scrap the asylum system—and build something better

Hindustan Times

timean hour ago

  • Hindustan Times

Scrap the asylum system—and build something better

THE RULES for refugees arose haphazardly. The UN Refugee Convention of 1951 applied only to Europe, and aimed to stop fugitives from Stalin being sent back to face his fury. It declared that anyone forced to flee by a 'well-founded fear' of persecution must have sanctuary, and must not be returned to face peril (the principle of 'non-refoulement'). In 1967 the treaty was extended to the rest of the world. Most countries have signed it. Yet dwindling numbers honour it. China admits fewer refugees than tiny Lesotho and sends North Koreans home to face the gulag. President Donald Trump has ended asylum in America for nearly everyone except white South Africans, and plans to spend more on deporting irregular migrants than other countries spend on defence. Western attitudes are hardening. In Europe the views of social democrats and right-wing populists are converging. The system is not working. Designed for post-war Europe, it cannot cope with a world of proliferating conflict, cheap travel and huge wage disparities. Roughly 900m people would like to migrate permanently. Since it is almost impossible for a citizen of a poor country to move legally to a rich one, many move without permission. In the past two decades many have discovered that asylum offers a back door. Instead of crossing a border stealthily, as in the past, they walk up to a border guard and request asylum, knowing that the claim will take years to adjudicate and, in the meantime, they can melt into the shadows and find work. Voters are right to think the system has been gamed. Most asylum claims in the European Union are now rejected outright. Fear of border chaos has fuelled the rise of populism, from Brexit to Donald Trump, and poisoned the debate about legal migration. To create a system that offers safety for those who need it but also a reasonable flow of labour migration, policymakers need to separate one from the other. Around 123m people have been displaced by conflict, disaster or persecution, three times more than in 2010, partly because wars are lasting longer. All these people have a right to seek safety. But 'safety' need not mean access to a rich country's labour market. Indeed, resettlement in rich countries will never be more than a tiny part of the solution. In 2023 OECD countries received 2.7m claims for asylum—a record number, but a pinprick compared with the size of the problem. The most pragmatic approach would be to offer more refugees sanctuary close to home. Typically, this means in the first safe country or regional bloc where they set foot. Refugees who travel shorter distances are more likely one day to return home. They are also more likely to be welcomed by their hosts, who tend to be culturally close to them and to be aware that they are seeking the first available refuge from a calamity. This is why Europeans have largely welcomed Ukrainians, Turks have been generous to Syrians and Chadians to Sudanese. Looking after refugees closer to home is often much cheaper. The UN refugee agency spends less than $1 a day on each refugee in Chad. Given limited budgets, rich countries would help far more people by funding refugee agencies properly—which they currently do not—than by housing refugees in first-world hostels or paying armies of lawyers to argue over their cases. They should also assist the host countries generously, and encourage them to let refugees support themselves by working, as an increasing number do. Compassionate Westerners may feel an urge to help the refugees they see arriving on their shores. But if the journey is long, arduous and costly, the ones who complete it will usually not be the most desperate, but male, healthy and relatively well-off. Fugitives from Syria's war who made it to next-door Turkey were a broad cross-section of Syrians; those who reached Europe were 15 times more likely to have college degrees. When Germany opened its doors to Syrians in 2015-16, it inspired 1m refugees who had already found safety in Turkey to move to Europe in pursuit of higher wages. Many went on to lead productive lives, but it is not obvious why they deserved priority over the legions of other, sometimes better-qualified people who would have relished the same opportunity. Voters have made clear they want to choose whom to let in—and this does not mean everyone who shows up and claims asylum. If rich countries want to stem such arrivals, they need to change the incentives. Migrants who trek from a safe country to a richer one should not be considered for asylum. Those who arrive should be sent to a third country for processing. If governments want to host refugees from far-off places, they can select them at source, where the UN already registers them as they flee from war zones. Some courts will say this violates the principle of non-refoulement. But it need not if the third country is safe. Giorgia Meloni, Italy's prime minister, wants to send asylum-seekers to have their cases heard in Albania, which qualifies. South Sudan, where Mr Trump wants to dump illicit migrants, does not. Deals can be done to win the co-operation of third-country governments, especially if rich countries act together, as the EU is starting to. Once it becomes clear that arriving uninvited confers no advantage, the numbers doing so will plummet. The politics of the possible That should restore order at the frontier, and so create political space for a calmer discussion of labour migration. Rich countries would benefit from more foreign brains. Many also want young hands to work on farms and in care homes, as Ms Meloni proposes. An orderly influx of talent would make both host countries and the migrants themselves more prosperous. Dealing with the backlog of previous irregular arrivals would still be hard. Mr Trump's policy of mass deportation is both cruel and expensive. Far better to let those who have put down roots stay, while securing the border and changing the incentives for future arrivals. If liberals do not build a better system, populists will build a worse one. For subscribers only: to see how we design each week's cover, sign up to our weekly Cover Story newsletter.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store